Luther saw that he must write an answer; but it was not until the end of the year 1525 that he prepared to do so; and Melancthon having informed Erasmus that Luther would be moderate, the philosopher was greatly alarmed. "If I have written with moderation," said he, "it is my disposition; but Luther possesses the wrath of Peleus' son (Achilles). And how can it be otherwise? When a vessel braves a storm such as that which has burst upon Luther, what anchor, what ballast, what helm does it not require to prevent it from being driven out of its course! If therefore he replies to me in a manner not in accordance with his character, these sycophants will cry out that we are in collusion."[580] We shall see that Erasmus was soon relieved of this apprehension.

[580] Ille si hic multum sui dissimilis fuerit, clamabunt sycophantae colludere nos. Erasm. Epp. p. 819.

The doctrine of G.o.d's election as the sole cause of man's salvation had always been dear to the reformer; but hitherto he had considered it in a practical light only. In his reply to Erasmus, he investigated it particularly in a speculative point of view, and endeavoured to establish by such arguments as appeared to him most conclusive, that G.o.d works everything in man's conversion, and that our hearts are so alienated from the love of G.o.d that they cannot have a sincere desire for righteousness, except by the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit.

"To call our will a free will," said he, "is to imitate those princes who acc.u.mulate long t.i.tles, styling themselves lords of sundry kingdoms, princ.i.p.alities, and distant islands (of Rhodes, Cyprus, and Jerusalem, &c.), while they have not the least power over them." Here, however, Luther makes an important distinction, clearly showing that he by no means partic.i.p.ated in the third opinion that Erasmus had pointed out and imputed to him. "Man's will may be called a free will, not in relation to that which is above him, that is to say, to G.o.d; but with respect to that which is below, that is, to the things of the earth.[581] As regards my property, my fields, my house, my farm, I can act, do, and manage freely. But in the things of salvation, man is a captive; he is subjected to the will of G.o.d, or rather of the devil.[582] Show me but one of all these advocates of free will (he exclaims) that has found in himself sufficient strength to endure a trifling injury, a fit of anger, or merely a look from his enemy, and bear it with joy; then--without even asking him to be ready to give up his body, his life, his wealth, his honour, and all things--I acknowledge you have gained your cause."[583]

[581] Der Wille des Menschen mag......L. Opp. xix. 29.

[582] Ibid. 33.

[583] Ibid.

[Sidenote: POWER OF MAN AND OF G.o.d.]

Luther's glance was too penetrating not to discover the contradictions into which his opponent had fallen. And accordingly, in his reply he endeavours to fasten the philosopher in the net in which he had entangled himself. "If the pa.s.sages you quote," said he, "establish that it is easy for us to do good, why do we dispute? What need have we of Christ and of the Holy Ghost? Christ would then have acted foolishly in shedding his blood to acquire for us a power that we already possessed by nature." In truth, the pa.s.sages cited by Erasmus must be taken in quite a different sense. This much debated question is clearer than it appears to be at first sight. When the Bible says to man, Choose, it presupposes the a.s.sistance of G.o.d's grace, by which alone he can do what it commands. G.o.d, in giving the commandment, also gives the strength to fulfil it. If Christ said to Lazarus, Come forth, it was not that Lazarus had power to restore himself; but that Christ, by commanding him to leave the sepulchre, gave him also the strength to do so, and accompanied His words with His creative power.

He spoke, and it was done. Moreover, it is very true that the man to whom G.o.d speaks must will; it is he who wills, and not another; he can receive this will but from G.o.d alone; but it is in him that this will must be, and the very commandment that G.o.d addresses to him, and which, according to Erasmus, establishes the ability of man, is so reconcilable with the workings of G.o.d, that it is precisely by these means that the working is effected. It is by saying to the man "Be converted," that G.o.d converts him.

[Sidenote: LUTHER'S SECOND AND THIRD PARTS.]

But the idea on which Luther princ.i.p.ally dwelt in his reply is, that the pa.s.sages quoted by Erasmus are intended to teach men their duty, and their inability to perform it, but in no way to make known to them the pretended power ascribed to them. "How frequently it happens,"

says Luther, "a father calls his feeble child to him, and says: 'Will you come, my son! come then, come!' in order that the child may learn to call for his a.s.sistance, and allow himself to be carried."[584]

[584] L. Opp. xix. 55.

After combating Erasmus's arguments in favour of free will, Luther defends his own against the attacks of his opponent. "Dear Dissertation," says he ironically, "mighty heroine, who pridest thyself in having overthrown these words of our Lord in St. John: _Without me ye can do_ NOTHING, which thou regardest nevertheless as the prop of my argument, and callest it _Luther's Achilles_, listen to me. Unless thou canst prove that this word _nothing_, not only may but must signify _little_, all thy high-sounding phrases, thy splendid examples, have no more effect than if a man were to attempt to quench an immense fire with a handful of straw. What are such a.s.sertions as these to us: _This may mean; that may be understood_......whilst it was thy duty to show us that it must be so understood......Unless thou doest so, we take this declaration in its literal meaning, and laugh at all thy examples, thy great preparations, and thy pompous triumphs."[585]

[585] Ibid. 116.

Finally, in a concluding part, Luther shows, and always from Scripture, that the grace of G.o.d does everything. "In short," says he at the end, "since Scripture everywhere contrasts Christ with that which has not the spirit of Christ; since it declares that all which is not Christ and in Christ is under the power of error, darkness, the devil, death, sin, and the wrath of G.o.d, it follows that all these pa.s.sages of the Bible that speak of Christ are opposed to free will.

Now such pa.s.sages are numberless; the Holy Scriptures are full of them."[586]

[586] L. Opp. xix. 143.

[Sidenote: THE JANSENISTS AND THE REFORMERS.]

We perceive that the discussion which arose between Luther and Erasmus is the same as that which a century after took place between the Jansenists and Jesuits, between Pascal and Molina.[587] How is it that, while the results of the Reformation were so immense, Jansenism, though adorned by the n.o.blest geniuses, wasted and died away? It is because Jansenism went back to Augustine and relied on the Fathers; while the Reformation went back to the Bible and leant upon the Word of G.o.d. It is because Jansenism entered into a compromise with Rome, and wished to establish a middle course between truth and error, while the Reformation, relying upon G.o.d alone, cleared the soil, swept away all the rubbish of past ages, and laid bare the primitive rock. To stop half way is a useless work; in all things we should persevere to the end. Accordingly, while Jansenism has pa.s.sed away, the destinies of the world are bound up with evangelical Christianity.

[587] It is unnecessary to state that I do not speak of personal discussions between these two men, one of whom died in 1600, and the other was not born until 1623.

Further, after having keenly refuted error, Luther paid a brilliant but perhaps a somewhat sarcastic homage to Erasmus himself. "I confess," said he, "that you are a great man; where have we ever met with more learning, intelligence, or ability, both in speaking and writing? As for me, I possess nothing of the kind; there is only one thing from which I can derive any glory,--I am a Christian. May G.o.d raise you infinitely above me in the knowledge of the Gospel, so that you may surpa.s.s me as much in this respect as you do already in every other."[588]

[588] L. Opp. xix. pp. 146, 147.

Erasmus was beside himself when he read Luther's reply; and would see nothing in his encomiums but the honey of a poisoned cup, or the embrace of a serpent at the moment he darts his envenomed sting. He immediately wrote to the Elector of Saxony, demanding justice; and Luther having desired to appease him, he lost his usual temper, and, in the words of one of his most zealous apologists, began "to pour forth invectives with a broken voice and h.o.a.ry hair."[589]

[589] M. Nisard, Erasme, p. 419.

Erasmus was vanquished. Hitherto, moderation had been his strength,--and he had lost it. Pa.s.sion was his only weapon against Luther's energy. The wise man was wanting in wisdom. He replied publicly in his _Hyperaspistes_, accusing the reformer of barbarism, lying, and blasphemy. The philosopher even ventured on prophesying. "I prophesy," said he, "that no name under the sun will be held in greater execration than Luther's." The jubilee of 1817 has replied to this prophecy, after a lapse of three hundred years, by the enthusiasm and acclamations of the whole Protestant world.

[Sidenote: THE THREE DAYS.]

Thus, while Luther with the Bible was setting himself at the head of his age, Erasmus, standing up against him, wished to occupy the same place with philosophy. Which of these two leaders has been followed?

Both undoubtedly. Nevertheless Luther's influence on the nations of Christendom has been infinitely greater than that of Erasmus. Even those who did not thoroughly understand the grounds of the dispute, seeing the conviction of one antagonist and the doubts of the other, could not refrain from believing that the first was right and the second wrong. It has been said that the three last centuries, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth, may be conceived as an immense battle of three days' duration.[590] We willingly adopt this beautiful comparison, but not the part that is a.s.signed to each of the days. The same struggle has been ascribed to the sixteenth and to the eighteenth century. On the first day, as on the last, it is philosophy that breaks the ranks. The sixteenth century philosophical!......Strange error! No: each of these days has its marked and distinct character.

On the first day of the conflict, it was the Word of G.o.d, the Gospel of Christ, that triumphed; and then Rome was defeated, as well as human philosophy, in the person of Erasmus and her other representatives. On the second day, we grant that Rome, her authority, her discipline, her doctrine, reappeared and were about to triumph by the intrigues of a celebrated society and the power of the scaffold, aided by men of n.o.ble character and sublime genius. On the third day, human philosophy arose in all its pride, and finding on the field of battle, not the Gospel, but Rome, made short work, and soon carried every intrenchment. The first day was the battle of G.o.d, the second the battle of the priest, the third the battle of reason. What will be the fourth?......In our opinion, the confused strife, the deadly contest of all these powers together, to end in the victory of Him to whom triumph belongs.

[590] Port Royal, by M. Sainte Beuve, i. 20.

CHAPTER X.

The Three Adversaries--Source of Truth--Grebel--The Fanatics and Zwingle--Const.i.tution of the Church--Prison--The Prophet Blaurock--Fanaticism at Saint Gall--Schucker and Family--Discussion at Zurich--The Limits of the Reformation--Punishment of the Fanatics.

[Sidenote: THE THREE ADVERSARIES.]

But the battle fought by the Reformation in the great day of the sixteenth century, under the standard of the Word of G.o.d, was not one and single, but manifold. The Reformation had many enemies to contend with at once; and after having first protested against the decretals and the supremacy of the pope, and then against the cold apophthegms of the rationalists, philosophers, or schoolmen, it had equally to struggle with the reveries of enthusiasm and the hallucinations of mysticism; opposing alike to these three powers the shield and the sword of Divine revelation.

It must be admitted that there is a great similarity, a striking unity, between these three powerful adversaries. The false systems that in every age have been the most opposed to evangelical Christianity, have always been distinguished by their making religious knowledge proceed from within the man himself. Rationalism makes it proceed from reason; mysticism from certain inner lights; and Romanism from an illumination of the pope. These three errors look for truth in man: evangelical Christianity looks for it wholly in G.o.d; and while mysticism, rationalism, and Romanism, admit a permanent inspiration in certain of our fellow-men, and thus open a door to every extravagance and diversity, evangelical Christianity recognises this inspiration solely in the writings of the apostles and prophets, and alone presents that great, beautiful, and living unity which is ever the same in all ages.

The task of the Reformation has been to re-establish the rights of the Word of G.o.d, in opposition not only to Romanism, but also to mysticism and rationalism.

[Sidenote: GREBEL AND THE FANATICS.]

The fanaticism, which had been extinguished in Germany by Luther's return to Wittemberg, reappeared in full vigour in Switzerland, and threatened the edifice that Zwingle, Haller, and colampadius had built on the Word of G.o.d. Thomas Munzer, having been forced to quit Saxony in 1521, had reached the frontiers of Switzerland. Conrad Grebel, whose restless and ardent disposition we have already noticed,[591] had become connected with him, as had also Felix Manz, a canon's son, and several other Zurichers; and Grebel had immediately endeavoured to gain over Zwingle. In vain had the latter gone farther than Luther; he saw a party springing up which desired to proceed farther still. "Let us form a community of true believers," said Grebel to him; "for to them alone the promise belongs, and let us found a church in which there shall be no sin."[592]--"We cannot make a heaven upon earth," replied Zwingle; "and Christ has taught us that we must let the tares grow up along with the wheat."[593]

[591] Vol. II. p. 348.

[592] Vermeintend ein Kilchen ze versammlen die one Sund war. Zw. Opp.

ii. 231.

[593] Ibid. iii. 362.

[Sidenote: CONSt.i.tUTION OF THE CHURCH.]

Grebel having failed with the reformer, would have desired to appeal to the people. "The whole community of Zurich," said he, "ought to have the final decision in matters of faith." But Zwingle feared the influence these radical enthusiasts might exercise over a large a.s.sembly. He thought that, except on extraordinary occasions when the people might be called upon to express their accordance, it was better to confide the interests of religion to a college, which might be considered the chosen representatives of the Church. Accordingly the Council of Two Hundred, which exercised the supreme political authority in Zurich, was also intrusted with the ecclesiastical power, on the express condition that they should conform in all things to the Holy Scriptures. No doubt it would have been better to have thoroughly organized the Church, and called on it to appoint its own representatives, who should be intrusted solely with the religious interests of the people; for a man may be very capable of administering the interests of the State, and yet very unskilful in those of the Church; just as the reverse of this is true also.

Nevertheless the inconvenience was not then so serious as it would have been in these days, since the members of the Great Council had frankly entered into the religious movement. But, however this may be, Zwingle, while appealing to the Church, was careful not to make it too prominent, and preferred the representative system to the actual sovereignty of the people. This is what, after three centuries, the states of Europe have been doing in the political world for the last fifty years.

Being rejected by Zwingle, Grebel turned to another quarter. Rubli, formerly pastor at Basle, Brodtlein, pastor at Zollikon, and Louis Herzer, received him with eagerness. They resolved to form an independent congregation in the midst of the great congregation, a Church within the Church. The baptism of adult believers only, was to be their means of a.s.sembling their congregation. "Infant baptism,"

said they, "is a horrible abomination, a flagrant impiety, invented by the wicked spirit, and by Nicholas II., pope of Rome."[594]

[594] Impietatem manifestissimam, a cacodaemone, a Nicolao II. esse.

Hottinger iii. 219.

The council of Zurich was alarmed, and ordered a public discussion to be held; and as they still refused to abjure their opinions, some of the Zurichers among their number were thrown into prison, and several foreigners were banished. But persecution only inflamed their zeal: "Not by words alone," cried they, "but with our blood, we are ready to bear testimony to the truth of our cause." Some of them, girding themselves with cords or ozier twigs, ran through the streets, exclaiming: "Yet a few days, and Zurich will be destroyed! Woe to thee, Zurich! Woe! woe!" The simple-minded and pious were agitated and alarmed. Fourteen men, among whom was Felix Mantz, and seven women, were apprehended, in despite of Zwingle's intercession, and put on bread and water in the heretic's tower. After being confined a fortnight, they managed to loosen some planks in the night, and aiding one another, effected their escape. "An angel," said they, "had opened the prison and led them forth."[595]